Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
n
i m
1,
;
j
1,
n
.
(2)
q
d
,
i
ij
j
1
The value of the weight
q
i
of the criterion in question is proportionally distributed to all
alternatives according to their values
x
ij
. Now the sums of weighted normalized minimising
S
-j
and maximising
S
+j
indicators describing the alternatives are calculated. The following
formulas are used:
m
(3)
S
d
;
j
ij
i
1
m
i m
1,
;
j
1,
n
.
(4)
S
d
;
j
ij
i
1
In this instance, the greater is the value
S
+
j
, the more the environment of the object in
question satisfies the positive criteria. The lower is the value
S
-
j
(negative criteria of
environmental factors), the more the environmental factors make negative impact on the
object's utility degree. Anyway, the sum totals of the pluses
S
+
j
and minuses
S
-
j
of all
alternatives are always, respectively, equal to all sum totals of weights of maximizing and
minimizing criteria:
n
m
n
(5)
S
S
d
;
j
ij
j
1
i
1
j
1
n
m
n
i m
1,
;
j
1,
n
.
(6)
S
S
d
;
j
ij
j
1
i
1
j
1
This way, the calculations may be verified again. The relative weight (efficiency) of
compared alternatives is determined considering relevant positive
S+j
and negative
S-j
features
.
The relative weight
Q
j
of each object
aj
is determined using the formula (7). Here
S
-
min
= min
S
j
.
n
S
·
S
min
j
(7)
j
1
QS
;
j n
1,
.
j
j
n
S
min
S
·
j
S
j
j
1
The process continues by identifying the priority of the objects in question. The higher is
Q
j
,
the more efficient is the object—it has a higher priority. If
Q
1 >
Q
2 >
Q
3
, then the first object is
the best. The above method is a rather simple way to evaluate and then to sort out the most
efficient variants. The resulting generalised criterion
Q
j
depends, directly and
proportionally, on the relative impact on the final result by the values
x
ij
and weights
q
i
of
the criteria in question. Thus the result is an unbiased line of priority of the objects in
question (Zavadskas et al., 1994).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search